Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 159

Thread: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

  1. #126
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,917

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The question is probably going to come down to. Is this team better off long term with Lance at $11+ million per year or Granger at $7 million?
    You may be right on that but it's still a complicated question. What if that extra 4 mil puts us into the LT or worse yet what if that extra 4 mil cost us Hibbert next year when he opts out because we then won't be able to keep Hibbert without going into the LT. I'd rather save the money for Hibbert if that's the case.
    I really want to keep Lance but I think Larry needs to be hard nosed about it and keep Danny as a viable option if Lance breaks the bank. If by some chance Lance makes the all star team I think his salary will go beyond 11 mil and it becomes almost impossible to see him here next year.

  2. #127
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,229

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The question is probably going to come down to. Is this team better off long term with Lance at $11+ million per year or Granger at $7 million?
    Or put another way, do you want to bet long term money on the 23 year old soon-to-be All Star (either this year or next) or the 30 year old former All Star?

    Btw, I've come to realize that I'm more optimistic on Lance than the great majority of the board, but that doesn't mean I hate Danny. I'm (still) a big fan of Danny (heck, look at my avatar), but the reality is that Lance is better for this team. In fact I would venture to say that replacing Paul with Danny would work out better than replacing Lance with Danny, but hopefully we'll never go down that road.

    Also, $7m for Danny seems to be underselling him a bit - I think his range is between $8m-$10m. If you guys haven't noticed, there's a lot of demand for big SF's who can shoot and defend. But there's even more demand for dynamic play creators like Lance, so at this point penciling him at $10m+ seems not out of the question. With Lance, there's still the question of his consistency and maturity which might scare away other teams; hopefully that would bring his price down for us.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to wintermute For This Useful Post:


  4. #128
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    221
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    offered IMHO after lurking for some time on the 20 Lance threads.

    I get that the Stephenson thing is the juice for this forum/and the league at the moment. I understand that in the NBA/entertainment shiney objects attract the most attention. Rodman was especially shiney for awhile.

    But I wish some Pacer folks would take a deep breath.

    To start with, it doesn't help make a convincing argument with comparisons of "Little Lebron" and Magic. It's hyperbole and smacks of athletic supporter sniffing. But I'm old enough to realize this happens every year with selected FAs (i.e. Linsanity/Howard), so I guess it's to be expected. But we also see around the league the refuse of FAs who were supposed to be the Second Coming, but their fans are now stuck trying to figure out a way to unload their fat contracts.

    Maybe a little more analysis and a little less vapor on the front end, instead of thrashing on the backend is in order.

    First, look at this guy's history from switching HSs, the National youth team, choosing a college, bouncing baby mama (charges dropped) and how he acted here the first 2 years. Lebron and Magic, on the other hand, were leading NBA teams at 18 and 19. At 23, we are still talking about how Lance is "maturing" and how this is the "best situation" for him like he needs a controlling force to keep him in the box. Never remember that those descriptors entering into a conversation about Magic or Lebron.

    I also remember someone trying to rationalize his behavior by comparing it to Reggie's antics. Don't see and at this point, Lance has a long way to go to have the same level of respect by others around the league that Reggie had. I never got the sense (except for Spike and the Garden) that for Reggie it was all about him. The Davis boys and others on those old Pacer teams would lay people out for Reggie. He and Jax were best friends. Don't get the same vibe for Lance.

    The thing with Curry last night was irksome. Giving Curry a shot after Curry tried to flop a charge was fine, but it wasn't enough for Lance. Grab his foot to try and give him a little spin, stand over him and pose for a second. In different game circumstances, I can see Bogut delivering to Lance a Geiger or a Pittman II. And don't worry, its coming. I guess I would be ok with it all if it were more of a controlled/theatrical act but I still think Lance's needle moves more towards the Ron World Peace end of the acting out scale.

    But even with the risk, there are a lot of folks who want to do what ever it takes. And that means living with the risk for years with no place to turn if it doesn't work out. We could talk about how long Bird plans to hang around to "mentor", how Lance coexists with PG after West is done, how it affects arguably the makeup of the best bench in the NBA, how it affects Roy's next contract. But most are focused on the shiney object.

    Me?

    Take advantage of the luck his current contract offers, win a title, let Lance play his way into a typical NBA FA mondo contract, offer him a contract North of GH's but not too far North and if NY, Chi or Cleve want to make it rain while trying to control him, good luck. We go back to doing it the hard way but with the knowledge we have PG, Roy (with more room for his next contract) and Hill. Get Danny to finish his career here and still have a solid bench.

    I would feel good about our chances to repeat.

    Think Luck/Manning. Are the Colts being "haunted forever" because Manning is in the Super Bowl this year? Didn't think so. And somehow the Pacers would survive too.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to seeker80 For This Useful Post:


  6. #129
    The Dude Abides MrSparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Age
    23
    Posts
    1,371

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by seeker80 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    offered IMHO after lurking for some time on the 20 Lance threads.

    I get that the Stephenson thing is the juice for this forum/and the league at the moment. I understand that in the NBA/entertainment shiney objects attract the most attention. Rodman was especially shiney for awhile.

    But I wish some Pacer folks would take a deep breath.

    To start with, it doesn't help make a convincing argument with comparisons of "Little Lebron" and Magic. It's hyperbole and smacks of athletic supporter sniffing. But I'm old enough to realize this happens every year with selected FAs (i.e. Linsanity/Howard), so I guess it's to be expected. But we also see around the league the refuse of FAs who were supposed to be the Second Coming, but their fans are now stuck trying to figure out a way to unload their fat contracts.

    Maybe a little more analysis and a little less vapor on the front end, instead of thrashing on the backend is in order.

    First, look at this guy's history from switching HSs, the National youth team, choosing a college, bouncing baby mama (charges dropped) and how he acted here the first 2 years. Lebron and Magic, on the other hand, were leading NBA teams at 18 and 19. At 23, we are still talking about how Lance is "maturing" and how this is the "best situation" for him like he needs a controlling force to keep him in the box. Never remember that those descriptors entering into a conversation about Magic or Lebron.

    I also remember someone trying to rationalize his behavior by comparing it to Reggie's antics. Don't see and at this point, Lance has a long way to go to have the same level of respect by others around the league that Reggie had. I never got the sense (except for Spike and the Garden) that for Reggie it was all about him. The Davis boys and others on those old Pacer teams would lay people out for Reggie. He and Jax were best friends. Don't get the same vibe for Lance.

    The thing with Curry last night was irksome. Giving Curry a shot after Curry tried to flop a charge was fine, but it wasn't enough for Lance. Grab his foot to try and give him a little spin, stand over him and pose for a second. In different game circumstances, I can see Bogut delivering to Lance a Geiger or a Pittman II. And don't worry, its coming. I guess I would be ok with it all if it were more of a controlled/theatrical act but I still think Lance's needle moves more towards the Ron World Peace end of the acting out scale.

    But even with the risk, there are a lot of folks who want to do what ever it takes. And that means living with the risk for years with no place to turn if it doesn't work out. We could talk about how long Bird plans to hang around to "mentor", how Lance coexists with PG after West is done, how it affects arguably the makeup of the best bench in the NBA, how it affects Roy's next contract. But most are focused on the shiney object.

    Me?

    Take advantage of the luck his current contract offers, win a title, let Lance play his way into a typical NBA FA mondo contract, offer him a contract North of GH's but not too far North and if NY, Chi or Cleve want to make it rain while trying to control him, good luck. We go back to doing it the hard way but with the knowledge we have PG, Roy (with more room for his next contract) and Hill. Get Danny to finish his career here and still have a solid bench.

    I would feel good about our chances to repeat.

    Think Luck/Manning. Are the Colts being "haunted forever" because Manning is in the Super Bowl this year? Didn't think so. And somehow the Pacers would survive too.

    So he's not "Little Lebron" or Magic, but he is Little Manning?

    I sure hope he doesn't take the Nuggets to the Finals next year.
    Report: 82% Of Wiseguys Think They're Real Funny

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to MrSparko For This Useful Post:


  8. #130
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    221
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    No, he's not a little anything. Except a little amazing at times and a little annoying at times.


    But I agree using hyperbole to fight hyperbole is fraught with danger.

    My goal was to try and use an analogy where pro/cons were weighed and a prudent decision made instead of "at all costs", "whatever it takes" aren't the starting point.


    And the Nuggets winning anything in the next 20 years seems...a stretch

  9. #131
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,986

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by seeker80 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Maybe a little more analysis and a little less vapor on the front end, instead of thrashing on the backend is in order.

    First, look at this guy's history from switching HSs, the National youth team, choosing a college, bouncing baby mama (charges dropped) and how he acted here the first 2 years. Lebron and Magic, on the other hand, were leading NBA teams at 18 and 19. At 23, we are still talking about how Lance is "maturing" and how this is the "best situation" for him like he needs a controlling force to keep him in the box. Never remember that those descriptors entering into a conversation about Magic or Lebron.[
    How does off court issues invalidate a comparison between how players stylistically play basketball? The comparisons to LeBron/Magic are only about how each player plays the game, not their personalities on and off the court.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  10. #132
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,549

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How does off court issues invalidate a comparison between how players stylistically play basketball? The comparisons to LeBron/Magic are only about how each player plays the game, not their personalities on and off the court.
    I'd venture to say that in this case there is some validity to bringing it to the conversation - mainly because the big question mark is how Lance would fit on a team where he was either "the man" or without the support system the Pacers have in place (or both). You might not agree with the conclusions based on Lance's history, but I think the history is valid information to apply to that extrapolation.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to BillS For This Useful Post:


  12. #133
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,986

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    I still don't see how his history has anything to do with how he actually plays the game. The LeBron comparison is strictly about how he can get a rebound and then start/finish a fastbreak by himself. Nothing more. It's not comparing all of LeBron's game with Lance's. Same with the Magic comparison, about how he sees passing lanes that most players don't and players like Magic do.

    If you keep the comparison narrow, as it's intended, the rest of it just falls away.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  13. #134
    Member owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,188

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I still don't see how his history has anything to do with how he actually plays the game. The LeBron comparison is strictly about how he can get a rebound and then start/finish a fastbreak by himself. Nothing more. It's not comparing all of LeBron's game with Lance's. Same with the Magic comparison, about how he sees passing lanes that most players don't and players like Magic do.

    If you keep the comparison narrow, as it's intended, the rest of it just falls away.
    If the Pacers do not keep Lance who takes his spot? Paul? Danny then at sf?
    Who can somewhat replace what he does? Is signing Lance going to keep Roy from being signed?
    If that is the case then I would rather have Roy.
    {o,o}
    |)__)
    -"-"-

  14. #135
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,917

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by owl View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If the Pacers do not keep Lance who takes his spot? Paul? Danny then at sf?
    Who can somewhat replace what he does? Is signing Lance going to keep Roy from being signed?
    If that is the case then I would rather have Roy.
    It's very possible that over paying Lance could keep us from signing Roy the following summer when he opts out and will demand a big raise. It would be foolish to not keep that in mind when deciding how much to offer Lance. Keeping Roy is a far higher priority IMO then keeping Lance. I want to keep Lance but we're better off in keeping Danny at 6 and keeping Roy at 18 then in keeping Lance at 12 then losing Roy next year.

  15. #136

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's very possible that over paying Lance could keep us from signing Roy the following summer when he opts out and will demand a big raise. It would be foolish to not keep that in mind when deciding how much to offer Lance. Keeping Roy is a far higher priority IMO then keeping Lance. I want to keep Lance but we're better off in keeping Danny at 6 and keeping Roy at 18 then in keeping Lance at 12 then losing Roy next year.
    Lance is only 23 years old, and may have more potential than anyone in the NBA with his physical abilities. We have to pay this guy. Besides that, Roy might even opt into his player option then get his pay day when West comes off the books for the better of the team. Roy seems like a guy who would do that, especially after the Pacers took a chance and matched Portland's offer.

    Was it ever official that PG agreed to a 27% deal (15.8M in 1st year) rather than 30% deal (17.5M in 1st year)?

    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...than-expected/
    Last edited by brownjake43; 01-21-2014 at 07:03 PM.

  16. #137
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,529

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's very possible that over paying Lance could keep us from signing Roy the following summer when he opts out and will demand a big raise. It would be foolish to not keep that in mind when deciding how much to offer Lance. Keeping Roy is a far higher priority IMO then keeping Lance. I want to keep Lance but we're better off in keeping Danny at 6 and keeping Roy at 18 then in keeping Lance at 12 then losing Roy next year.
    I agree that the Pacers should take re-signing Hibbert into considerations when trying to re-sign Lance. However, when it comes to re-signing Lance at the cost of considering Hibbert's eventual Free Agency.....I think that it's better to re-sign Lance for his Market Value ( as in, offer him a comprable contract offer to whatever other Teams offer him....even if it is up to $11.5+ mil a year / $46 mil Contract offer ) and then figure out what to do to re-sign Hibbert in the Summer of 2015.

    In 2015-2016.....the Pacers will have more options when it comes to having enough Capspace to try to make any offer to Hibbert ( compared to the options that they have now when it comes to re-signing Lance this offseason ). Keep in mind....Scola, Copeland, and CJ come off the books at the same time Hibbert is up for his Player Option.

    Now...if some Team is foolish enough to offer him a $52 mil / 4 Year Contract offer ( basically a $13 mil a year ), then that would make me think twice....but I think that his market value will settle down to something between $10+ mil a year while topping off at $12 mil a year ( if some Team REALLY wants to overpay him ).
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  17. #138
    Member Dr. Awesome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    4,246

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I agree that the Pacers should take re-signing Hibbert into considerations when trying to re-sign Lance. However, when it comes to re-signing Lance at the cost of considering Hibbert's eventual Free Agency.....I think that it's better to re-sign Lance for his Market Value ( as in, offer him a comprable contract offer to whatever other Teams offer him....even if it is up to $11.5+ mil a year / $46 mil Contract offer ) and then figure out what to do to re-sign Hibbert in the Summer of 2015.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time Hibbert comes off the books, won't West's contract have expired by then, maybe even Hill's?

  18. #139
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,917

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by brownjake43 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Lance is only 23 years old, and may have more potential than anyone in the NBA with his physical abilities. We have to pay this guy. Besides that, Roy might even opt into his player option then get his pay day when West comes off the books for the better of the team. Roy seems like a guy who would do that, especially after the Pacers took a chance and matched Portland's offer.

    Was it ever official that PG agreed to a 27% deal (15.8M in 1st year) rather than 30% deal (17.5M in 1st year)?
    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...than-expected/
    That fact that Roy and his agent wouldn't give us a discount on and extension and were prepared to bolt for Portland over the money leads me to believe that he'll absolutly opt out as soon as possible in order to get the higher max contract. This time he won't be restricted though so we'd better be prepared to just offer him the max the second he opts out and move on or he'll have a line of suiters ready to give it to him. I want to keep Lance but Larry would be foolish to just pay him whatever it takes while knowing what that mistake could cost him. Larry has been up front with us though and said that he'll give Lance a fair offer and be prepared to go with someone else if he has to.

  19. #140

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time Hibbert comes off the books, won't West's contract have expired by then, maybe even Hill's?
    Hibbert and West both have player options for 15/16. Hibbert can get a bigger deal by opting out but West will probably take the option, meaning we have to negotiate a deal with Hibbert while West is still on the books. Hill's contract ends the next year.

  20. #141
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,529

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time Hibbert comes off the books, won't West's contract have expired by then, maybe even Hill's?
    According to Shamsports:

    http://data.shamsports.com/content/p...ies/pacers.jsp

    Hibbert has a Player Option in the 2015-2016 season for $15.54 mil.
    West has a Player Option in the 2015-2016 season for $12.6 mil.
    GH has guaranteed Salary until the 2016-2017 season for $8 mil a year.

    I can see Hibbert opting out in the 2015-2016 season....whereas West probably won't ( given his age ).

    Assuming that the Player and Team Options are picked up by West and Solo....the Pacers will have 5 Players owed $40.7 mil ( not including Lance ). I have no idea how much PG24's 2015-2016 Salary will be with the MAX Raises that he can get cuz of making the ASG...so maybe round that up to about $44 mil ( on the very high end, just to be conservative ).

    I think that even with Lance.....the Pacers can afford to pay Hibbert another NEAR MAX contract since the Pacers can go over the LT to re-sign their own Players. It would mean that the Pacers would have to fill their roster with CJ type signings and we'd still be good....but re-signing Hibbert and Lance is a possibility.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  21. #142

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    According to Shamsports:

    http://data.shamsports.com/content/p...ies/pacers.jsp
    1
    Hibbert has a Player Option in the 2015-2016 season for $15.54 mil.
    West has a Player Option in the 2015-2016 season for $12.6 mil.
    GH has guaranteed Salary until the 2016-2017 season for $8 mil a year.

    I can see Hibbert opting out in the 2015-2016 season....whereas West probably won't ( given his age ).

    Assuming that the Player and Team Options are picked up by West and Solo....the Pacers will have 5 Players owed $40.7 mil ( not including Lance ). I have no idea how much PG24's 2015-2016 Salary will be with the MAX Raises that he can get cuz of making the ASG...so maybe round that up to about $44 mil ( on the very high end, just to be conservative ).

    I think that even with Lance.....the Pacers can afford to pay Hibbert another NEAR MAX contract since the Pacers can go over the LT to re-sign their own Players. It would mean that the Pacers would have to fill their roster with CJ type signings and we'd still be good....but re-signing Hibbert and Lance is a possibility.
    This is one reason I think the Pacers should try as hard as possible to avoid going into the luxury tax now, even if we win a title. Simon might be willing to pay the tax for a year or two, but he definitely doesn't want to pay the repeater tax. We need to avoid the LT as much as possible now just in case it's unavoidable in the future.

    If West is still playing well in a couple years, I wonder if we could convince him to drop that last year at $12 million and give him two years at $8 instead, which would help us avoid the tax with Hibbert's new contract.

  22. #143

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    One last thing, it's funny that the rallying cry for the new CBA was that we have to stop these big market franchises from making super teams, and yet the two teams that are most hurt by the new CBA are Indiana and OKC.

  23. #144
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,549

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    One last thing, it's funny that the rallying cry for the new CBA was that we have to stop these big market franchises from making super teams, and yet the two teams that are most hurt by the new CBA are Indiana and OKC.
    The big markets are hurt by it, they just don't particularly care. Only teams not wanting to go into the tax are making arrangements. However, it is hitting Miami et al in the pocketbooks big time once the repeater kicks in.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  24. #145

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    We don't have to worry about Lance going anywhere. What team wants to sign a flopper ??

  25. #146
    Member Speed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Brownsburg
    Posts
    8,525

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Good read, nice seeing two sides of the coin from folks.

    I wonder if a team like that Nets who have an unlimited pool of money would throw the bank at him.

    At this point, I think he's a great as a wild card on a team that is tied together. As a near max, lead guy he's a disaster, imo, which I think if he leaves and is in that situation you'd find that out really quick. You do have to draw the line somewhere based on the reward.

    I also disagree that he isn't replaceable, even though he's perfect for how the team is currently set up. I think there are a number of very good more reasonably price 2 guards who can bring things to the table, not the exact same stuff. I think the infrastructure on this team is such that it would be sucessful either way. I really want him back because he fits, but I do not in any way see it as a choice of competing for a ring or not. I think he fits because of the surroundings, not because he's a fitter inner, that wouldn't change if he leaves.

    The other thing if he did leave and it didn't work for the Pacers, you could look at more of a play making Point Guard and have a more pure traditional 2 guard. None of this is in a bubble, I guess is what I'm saying.
    Last edited by Speed; 01-22-2014 at 06:55 AM.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Speed For This Useful Post:


  27. #147

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    One last thing, it's funny that the rallying cry for the new CBA was that we have to stop these big market franchises from making super teams, and yet the two teams that are most hurt by the new CBA are Indiana and OKC.
    I agree that's ironic, but it's still early and other markets have changed as well in smaller ways because of it. For example,

    Dallas didn't re-sign Chandler partly because of wanting to stay out of the luxury tax.
    NY didn't match Lin partly because of the luxury tax payment in year three.
    Miami amnestied Mike Miller to save money, and now has traded Joel Anthony for the same reason.
    Chicago traded Deng for lower than his value to get out of the tax.

    It looks like there are only five luxury tax teams left, and only two are over 10 million above the luxury tax line (Brooklyn and New York). That isn't completely unusual for luxury tax teams, but it is one of the better years and from all the whispers around the league it seems like it's going to stay this way.

    And then of course the hidden effects. For example, a couple years ago the Pacers were very public in that they couldn't even afford to spend up to the luxury tax line. The TV deals the large market teams are signing increase the cap, but they don't help the small market teams increase revenue which makes it harder and harder to keep up. The increased revenue sharing and luxury tax payments distributed around the league have certainly helped those small market teams, and have helped the Pacers spend up to the line again (the attendance increases of course have helped as well).

    Also if you look at it, I'm not sure the Pacers luxury tax stance is just because of the new system. I'm not sure they could have gone past it again under the old system. Just getting up to the tax line next year is over 10 million more in salary than the last time the Pacers were over the line, and I'm not sure the Pacers revenues have increased by that much since then (absent the extra money they get from the league with the new LT system). I'm not sure what the television deal was like the mid 2000's, but even now the Pacers are only getting between 5 and 8 million per year for the TV rights.

  28. #148
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,229

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I wonder if a team like that Nets who have an unlimited pool of money would throw the bank at him.
    Nets can't, because they only have the mini MLE to offer FAs. They can get Lance through S&T, but I don't see why we'd cooperate.

    I think there are sufficient other teams though who will have cap space and may be willing to throw big money at a player who they might see as the next breakout star.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to wintermute For This Useful Post:


  30. #149
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,229

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    One last thing, it's funny that the rallying cry for the new CBA was that we have to stop these big market franchises from making super teams, and yet the two teams that are most hurt by the new CBA are Indiana and OKC.
    When they said they were leveling the playing field, they meant between the teams who are good at drafting/developing versus the ones who aren't.

    That's always been my problem with the hard cap. A good team that was painstakingly assembled will inevitably have to be broken up because the players become too expensive. The current system is even worse than a hard cap though, because teams like us and OKC are operating as if we're under a hard cap, while the Lakers and NY teams aren't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cubs231721 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And then of course the hidden effects. For example, a couple years ago the Pacers were very public in that they couldn't even afford to spend up to the luxury tax line. The TV deals the large market teams are signing increase the cap, but they don't help the small market teams increase revenue which makes it harder and harder to keep up. The increased revenue sharing and luxury tax payments distributed around the league have certainly helped those small market teams, and have helped the Pacers spend up to the line again (the attendance increases of course have helped as well).

    Also if you look at it, I'm not sure the Pacers luxury tax stance is just because of the new system. I'm not sure they could have gone past it again under the old system. Just getting up to the tax line next year is over 10 million more in salary than the last time the Pacers were over the line, and I'm not sure the Pacers revenues have increased by that much since then (absent the extra money they get from the league with the new LT system). I'm not sure what the television deal was like the mid 2000's, but even now the Pacers are only getting between 5 and 8 million per year for the TV rights.
    Very good points. I remember a Larry Bird interview from I think 2 years back where he said the target payroll was between $60-65m, which is well under the current luxury tax. I still think the LT is a line we won't cross, but if we take Bird's word then at face value then the team is already operating above budget.

  31. #150
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,917

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    According to Shamsports:

    http://data.shamsports.com/content/p...ies/pacers.jsp

    Hibbert has a Player Option in the 2015-2016 season for $15.54 mil.
    West has a Player Option in the 2015-2016 season for $12.6 mil.
    GH has guaranteed Salary until the 2016-2017 season for $8 mil a year.

    I can see Hibbert opting out in the 2015-2016 season....whereas West probably won't ( given his age ).

    Assuming that the Player and Team Options are picked up by West and Solo....the Pacers will have 5 Players owed $40.7 mil ( not including Lance ). I have no idea how much PG24's 2015-2016 Salary will be with the MAX Raises that he can get cuz of making the ASG...so maybe round that up to about $44 mil ( on the very high end, just to be conservative ).

    I think that even with Lance.....the Pacers can afford to pay Hibbert another NEAR MAX contract since the Pacers can go over the LT to re-sign their own Players. It would mean that the Pacers would have to fill their roster with CJ type signings and we'd still be good....but re-signing Hibbert and Lance is a possibility.

    Hibbert will demand every dollar of the max and we won't even be able to try to get him for less, he'll have too many options to get it elsewhere. If we were to pay Lance 12 mil that year and Hibbert his max we'd be at 72 mil on 6 players. We'd still have to sign 7 more players with 3 million dollars to stay under the LT. If we kept Solo and Johnson that would take 2.5 mil of it. I don't think it's possible to pull it off. CJ makes 2 mil so we couldn't do with players like him and we'd have to let Scola walk. Larry really needs to plan this out to be able to keep Hibbert. The difference between paying Lance or Danny 7 mil and paying them 12 would be likely be the difference in keeping Hibbert.
    HoopsHype Indiana Pacers

    by HoopsHype - Indiana Pacers Rumors - Indiana Pacers Twitters

    Key: Player Option / Team Option / Qualifying Offer / Amnestied

    Player 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
    Roy Hibbert $14,283,844 $14,898,938 $15,514,031 $0 $0 $0
    Danny Granger $14,021,788 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
    David West $12,000,000 $12,000,000 $12,600,000 $0 $0 $0
    George Hill $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $0 $0
    Luis Scola $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
    Ian Mahinmi $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $0 $0 $0
    Paul George $3,282,003 $15,800,000 $16,900,000 $18,100,000 $19,300,000 $20,500,000
    Chris Copeland $3,000,000 $3,130,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
    CJ Watson $2,016,000 $2,077,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
    Rasual Butler $1,399,507 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
    Solomon Hill $1,246,680 $1,302,840 $1,358,880 $2,306,019 $3,355,258 $0
    Lance Stephenson $981,349 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
    Donald Sloan $884,293 $948,163 $0 $0 $0 $0
    Orlando Johnson $788,872 $915,243 $1,181,348 $0 $0 $0
    TOTALS: $70,404,336 $65,708,778 $57,014,031

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •